Documenting flags: Part 2

The following material is from an unpublished work (The Naked Vexillologist, Phillip L. Nelson, © 2002, 2003) and is produced in an abridged version here. Where possible the original formatting and footnotes for the selected areas have been retained. Items marked with […] represent portions of the text not submitted to FOTW.

The Naked Vexillologist

Introduction

As vexillology enters its third generation, it is important for us as practicing professionals, semi-professionals and dedicated amateurs to take the opportunity to pause and reflect upon the study of flags. Unlike many disciplines, there are no college degrees to be earned in vexillology, and few courses have ever been taught on vexillology. The discipline is, in many respects, one that crosses into the realm of other disciplines such as history, sociology, psychology, graphic design and political science among others. The development of modern vexillology in the 1960s has given rise to vexillological organizations in many countries on six continents. And yet, in its short life, vexillology has not produced any materials by which the future practitioners may be trained except by observation of the work product of current practitioners.

To understand the need for the development of vexillological standards, it is necessary to rehash the definition often used with the community of flag scholars: Vexillology is the scientific study of flags.

And we, as vexillologists must also be concerned with the fact that the discipline is either unknown to or misunderstood by the general public. As a discipline, it must also find respectability in the academic community beyond being a niche in any one discipline. But the failure of the academic community to consider vexillology beyond the boundaries of present academic disciplines is not uncommon. In a lecture on Quantum Cosmology, Dr. Steven W. Hawking notes:

Cosmology used to be considered a pseudo-science and the preserve of physicists who may have done useful work in their earlier years but who had gone mystic in their dotage. There are two reasons for this. The first was that there was an almost total absence of reliable observations. Indeed, until the 1920s about the only important cosmological observation was that the sky at night is dark. [However, in recent years] the range and quality of cosmological observations has improved enormously with the developments in technology.¹

This paper is to postulate the need for a discipline of vexillological scholarship necessary to train the future vexillologists so they will not be believed to be mystic in their practice of the study of flags. The paper will not propose a model of vexillological scholarship, rather, at times, rhetorical questions may be raised that will hopefully challenge the vexillological community to a dialogue on the development of the materials and resources necessary to train our future vexillologists.

[…]

Theory and Practice

[…]

2. The Basic Building Blocks

Given the fact that the general public is generally ignorant of vexillological techniques and the existence of many vexillological organizations, it is not surprising that younger vexillologists may make mistakes in their work. As noted earlier in this paper, it is for future vexillologists that we need to create the tools necessary to build the discipline.

And this will not be easy. Some vexillologists believe that only certain facts are significant or more important than others; that we should focus on the history, or the psychology or the social aspects of a flag, or the facts and figures.

1. Dates. This is basic information and its inclusion should not surprise the most experienced vexillologist, nor the least experienced. However, we are not talking about selected dates that are considered the most significant by some vexillologists, but also dates that are not so obvious or which may be overlooked.

If I were to document the history of the 50-star U.S. flag, what dates would be necessary? We can point to the date it was first hoisted on July 4, 1960.

But a complete analysis would need to go further. We would need to travel backwards in time to the Executive Order issued by President Eisenhower, to document the date it was designed (if known), date the design was accepted, the laws that were enacted prior to the date of the flag's "Event One."

Whether I would include all of the accumulated dates in any paper I would write is a decision that would be based upon what I was writing at a particular time. In fact, the information could be the basis for several articles, both scholarly and for the mass media. But if the information base that I am constructing is incomplete in any way by excluding information which an overt prejudice may rule out as unimportant, then the veracity of any article which I might write might be called into question.

2. Colors. Again, this is very basic information, or so it may seem. The ideal in documentation would be to have a color specification, in law or in practice or by design specification, which bases the description on a standard, such as Pantone or another accepted system. These make the specifications exact (even if they cannot be reproduced 100% on the printed page). Lacking a standard we are forced to rely upon other practices of describing a color - observation being a key element in reproducing the flag. One such standard is the Flag Information System adopted by FIAV. Here, colors can be identified using a shorthand that includes not only basic colors, but also representations of up to 5 shades of the color.

But observation does have its problems. We are dependent upon our perception, a perception that can be clouded by environmental factors: Was the day sunny or clear? Was the flag observation tainted by pollution making materials look different? Or was the flag soiled? Could our memory have been wrong when we image based upon photograph attributed the color to be a R+, when inaccuracy: fair reality it is a R++?

3. Changes to the flag. Flags do change, some dramatically. But there are known instances when a color has been changed for another (the Netherlands) for practical reasons. For the researcher, this may require defining the scope of the study.

4. Symbolism. The flag researcher must consider the two types of symbolism, namely colors and the presence of any object on the flag. But the researcher must consider that the symbolism is not necessarily static. On the day it was adopted it may mean one thing, but political turmoil or other societal factors may cause the governing political body to redefine what the flag means - even if this is not compatible with the original definition.

5. Blazons. Many flags are based upon armorial grants. Consequently they can be described in heraldic terms. But not all flags originate from he